PDA

View Full Version : State-Issued Christian License Plates




Kade
07-07-2008, 07:43 AM
Thoughts? (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/sclicense.plates/index.html)

zach
07-07-2008, 07:51 AM
The only thing that really bugs me is that the Christian plates are the only kinds that are able to be fully personalized.


He said those who opposed are prejudiced against Christians.

Kinda like if we say that we don't like Obama, then we are racists.

Sigh.

FindLiberty
07-07-2008, 07:54 AM
I saw "SAM" on their sample plate and thought, Son of Sam, if they can have a plate then by God, we can have a plate!

LIBERTY = Constitutionally small government

IRO-bot
07-07-2008, 07:55 AM
uhm. Well....I know in Florida you have to pay more for the plate and that money goes to an organization. This is very grey(gray sp?) waters.

LittleLightShining
07-07-2008, 07:58 AM
I don't really think there should be any special license plates. If you want to express your views or allegiances on your car there's a bumper sticker for you somewhere.

IRO-bot
07-07-2008, 08:03 AM
Is there a special fund that the money gets put in?
Does that money reveived by all denominations?

Is there a Jewish, Buhdist, Wiccan, Muslim license plate option?

Kade
07-07-2008, 08:03 AM
Is there a special fund that the money gets put in?
Does that money reveived by all denominations?

Is there a Jewish, Buhdist, Wiccan, Muslim license plate option?

No, yes, (paid, not received) , no, no, no, and no.

IRO-bot
07-07-2008, 08:11 AM
No, yes, (paid, not received) , no, no, no, and no.

Is there a block on other religions or are they free to set theirs up as well?

If so.....I am...ok with it I suppose.....heck it is very murky.

Kade
07-07-2008, 08:17 AM
Is there a block on other religions or are they free to set theirs up as well?

If so.....I am...ok with it I suppose.....heck it is very murky.

There are no other state-issued plates for other religions or creeds.

John E
07-07-2008, 08:37 AM
I think if they are going to offer it to one religion, they should open it up for all religions.

constituent
07-07-2008, 08:48 AM
The problem is license plates, i don't care what they do to fancy them up.

"It's not a chain, it's a charm bracelet!"

tonesforjonesbones
07-07-2008, 09:34 AM
You don't have to get that license plate. What is the problem? That is a choice..and you have to pay more for them. It's probably some charity..do you oppose christian charities that help all kinds of people? Nobody forces ANYONE to get that license plate. You are attacking christians AGAIN. tones

Kade
07-07-2008, 09:44 AM
You don't have to get that license plate. What is the problem? That is a choice..and you have to pay more for them. It's probably some charity..do you oppose christian charities that help all kinds of people? Nobody forces ANYONE to get that license plate. You are attacking christians AGAIN. tones

There are non-Christians paying into a tax system that supports these license plates.

There is not a viable option for the license plates in support of another religion or non-religion. It makes non-Christians feel like second-class citizens, and it is an establishment of Christianity as a favored religion in our government.

tonesforjonesbones
07-07-2008, 09:55 AM
No it is not. Not at all. Those plates are paid for by the elevated cost of them from people who choose them, just like save the manatees, or support the arts..etc. If you don't want it don't buy it. sheesh. This is nonsense. tones

familydog
07-07-2008, 09:56 AM
If the people don't like it, let them change it.

Kade
07-07-2008, 09:57 AM
If the people don't like it, let them change it.

Working on it.

tonesforjonesbones
07-07-2008, 09:59 AM
Well they probably do, if the other religions care to participate. How many hindu, buddhist, jewish etc charities / soup kitchens/ homeless shelters do you see around? Anybody? The Christians are the prominant group who are charitable to ALL PEOPLE. Most of the other religions only assist their own, or haven't you noticed? Tones

tonesforjonesbones
07-07-2008, 10:01 AM
Well I shall make sure I work to keep the program going. I see nothing wrong with it whatsoever. what do you have against helping others????? tones

Dr.3D
07-07-2008, 10:16 AM
No it is not. Not at all. Those plates are paid for by the elevated cost of them from people who choose them, just like save the manatees, or support the arts..etc. If you don't want it don't buy it. sheesh. This is nonsense. tones

Yep, don't forget the Amateur Radio Operators license plates like I get every year. I have to pay more for them. If others what some other form of 'vanity' license plate, they can order them too.

SovereignMN
07-07-2008, 10:22 AM
It's a state issue and completely constitutional. End of story.

micahnelson
07-07-2008, 10:45 AM
We have bumper stickers for public expression. People that revel in their license plates are sick puppies, its like using the glitterator (http://www.retrojunk.com/details_commercial/1025/) on your state issued Ankle Bracelet.

I would tend to say, "States Rights", but we have used the 14th amendment for so many things- it just seems to be discriminatory not to apply it here.

Beyond that, I don't think you have a constitutional right to free expression on your mostly unconstitutional government issued IDs. If this stands, I plan to start my own Government ID Modding kits, complete with RFID Chip neutralizing covers for passports- maybe even Lisa Frank puppies for your drivers license. Hmm. Much potential.

Saying all that to say this, I don't like it and people have a reason to be pissed. The state residents should oppose it since they are the ones paying for it, though.

ARealConservative
07-07-2008, 10:51 AM
as long as they are not cheaper then non-christian personalized plates, I have no problem with it.

Kade
07-07-2008, 11:30 AM
We have bumper stickers for public expression. People that revel in their license plates are sick puppies, its like using the glitterator (http://www.retrojunk.com/details_commercial/1025/) on your state issued Ankle Bracelet.

I would tend to say, "States Rights", but we have used the 14th amendment for so many things- it just seems to be discriminatory not to apply it here.

Beyond that, I don't think you have a constitutional right to free expression on your mostly unconstitutional government issued IDs. If this stands, I plan to start my own Government ID Modding kits, complete with RFID Chip neutralizing covers for passports- maybe even Lisa Frank puppies for your drivers license. Hmm. Much potential.

Saying all that to say this, I don't like it and people have a reason to be pissed. The state residents should oppose it since they are the ones paying for it, though.


Washington DC plates:

http://www.dcvote.org/images/dclicenseplate.jpg

I saw one in front of my apartment yesterday.

Kade
07-07-2008, 11:32 AM
The same lovely state who brought you this: http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/34611prs20080109.html

Kraig
07-07-2008, 11:49 AM
This is just stupid. License plates should be used to ID your vehicle and that's it. It would be better if they offered one for all religions, but then you'd get the Christians fighting Satanists for the sake of "protecting the children from the sight of Satanism plates" and ultimately many religions would be left out. Plus what if you're athiest? Why should you have to pay taxes for this non sense? Keep self expression in the realm of bumper stickers not tax funded plates.

familydog
07-07-2008, 12:12 PM
We have bumper stickers for public expression. People that revel in their license plates are sick puppies, its like using the glitterator (http://www.retrojunk.com/details_commercial/1025/) on your state issued Ankle Bracelet.

I would tend to say, "States Rights", but we have used the 14th amendment for so many things- it just seems to be discriminatory not to apply it here.

Beyond that, I don't think you have a constitutional right to free expression on your mostly unconstitutional government issued IDs. If this stands, I plan to start my own Government ID Modding kits, complete with RFID Chip neutralizing covers for passports- maybe even Lisa Frank puppies for your drivers license. Hmm. Much potential.

Saying all that to say this, I don't like it and people have a reason to be pissed. The state residents should oppose it since they are the ones paying for it, though.

The Fourteenth Amendment would apply here how?

micahnelson
07-07-2008, 12:12 PM
Washington DC plates:

I saw one in front of my apartment yesterday.

I like the message of the plate, but I still tend to think gov. id's should be minimal and without political slant.

Though, perhaps if you had provided a larger picture of the plate, I could understand better.

micahnelson
07-07-2008, 12:15 PM
The Fourteenth Amendment would apply here how?

It would be a violation of an individuals rights to be subject to any state sponsorship of religion.

I realize the 14th amendment is kind of a hot issue round these parts, but for better or worse you can't fix a law but only enforcing it sometimes- that would be discriminatory. Either we apply it in all cases, or we abolish it.

familydog
07-07-2008, 12:18 PM
It would be a violation of an individuals rights to be subject to any state sponsorship of religion.

I realize the 14th amendment is kind of a hot issue round these parts, but for better or worse you can't fix a law but only enforcing it sometimes- that would be discriminatory. Either we apply it in all cases, or we abolish it.

Can you point to a specific clause and elaborate? I don't see one that would apply.

micahnelson
07-07-2008, 12:30 PM
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Appropriating money for anything that promotes a religion in todays courts is considered an establishment of religion. If a state promotes a religion, it is violating your rights by establishing a religion. My understanding of the 14th is that states can't do anything congress can't do as far as civil rights, ie- establish religion, limit speech, take your guns... etc.

Theocrat
07-07-2008, 12:41 PM
Thoughts? (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/sclicense.plates/index.html)

Should we even have public license plates on our privately-owned and -purchased vehicles?

This is a matter of States' rights, so why should the federal government coerce a so-called "separation of Church and State" violation upon SC when they don't have the constitutional jurisdiction to do so?

South Carolina is not forcing anyone's religion upon others just because they choose to make Christian license plates. Its citizens have the freedom to obtain them or not, at their own leisure and at their own expense.

If the license plate had a "Darwin fish" on it, I doubt you would even have made this a subject worthy of discussion or controversy (assuming you have an offense with Christian license plates).

Kade
07-07-2008, 12:50 PM
Should we even have public license plates on our privately-owned and -purchased vehicles?

This is a matter of States' rights, so why should the federal government coerce a so-called "separation of Church and State" violation upon SC when they don't have the constitutional jurisdiction to do so?

South Carolina is not forcing anyone's religion upon others just because they choose to make Christian license plates. Its citizens have the freedom to obtain them or not, at their own leisure and at their own expense.

If the license plate had a "Darwin fish" on it, I doubt you would even have made this a subject worthy of discussion or controversy (assuming you have an offense with Christian license plates).


I was asking opinions... I haven't really expressed mine. For me, it's more like a loud sigh.

micahnelson
07-07-2008, 12:51 PM
I was asking opinions... I haven't really expressed mine. For me, it's more like a loud sigh.

I was thinking more of a /headpalm, not really a headdesk for me

SovereignMN
07-07-2008, 01:17 PM
Using the 14th amendment to justify a ban on State's making Christian license plates available is a s t r e t c h

Kade
07-07-2008, 01:20 PM
Using the 14th amendment to justify a ban on State's making Christian license plates available is a s t r e t c h

How about the first?

revolutionman
07-07-2008, 01:24 PM
that's right, I want Baphomet the sabbatical goat on my license plate!!

Not really, but its just to illustrate the extreme and disturbing things that could be done if this was open to all religions.

I don't think it should be open to any religion. Its a damn license plate, if you want everyone to know how much you love Jesus put a damn fish on your trunk or a bumper sticker, this is the equivelant of putting a persons religion on their state ID card.

SovereignMN
07-07-2008, 01:25 PM
The first amendment applies only to Congress, not to the State Legislatures or the people.

micahnelson
07-07-2008, 01:31 PM
The first amendment applies only to Congress, not to the State Legislatures or the people.

Which is why I cite the 14th. I'm not saying its rock solid ground, but considering the way it has been applied- it seems like it would apply here.

I wish it could just be a states rights issue, but I think if this was a crescent moon or a hammer and sickle the legislature would not approve it so whole heartedly, and that discrimination would be a violation of the constitution.

Kade
07-07-2008, 01:36 PM
The first amendment applies only to Congress, not to the State Legislatures or the people.

Oh this argument again.

So by this standard, the Massachusetts Bay Colony is legitimate?

bojo68
07-07-2008, 01:39 PM
Which is why I cite the 14th. I'm not saying its rock solid ground, but considering the way it has been applied- it seems like it would apply here.

I wish it could just be a states rights issue, but I think if this was a crescent moon or a hammer and sickle the legislature would not approve it so whole heartedly, and that discrimination would be a violation of the constitution.

Agreed. One of the central tenants of the constitution is EQUAL RIGHTS,(at least since women got the right to vote) So, if ONE idiot can use public property to promote their lunacy of choice, ALL other idiots should have the same right.

familydog
07-07-2008, 01:41 PM
Appropriating money for anything that promotes a religion in todays courts is considered an establishment of religion. If a state promotes a religion, it is violating your rights by establishing a religion. My understanding of the 14th is that states can't do anything congress can't do as far as civil rights, ie- establish religion, limit speech, take your guns... etc.

Meh. I disagree with you interpretation, and don't quite see how it fits in this situation.

First, the the clause is quite clearly modeled after the "priveledges and immunites" clause in Article IV, section 2. The framers of the 14th Amednment intended it to be a reiteration of that original clause with a twist. The meaning of this original clause was that one state had to treat citizens of another state in the same manner they treat their own. So for instance, the state of Pennsylvania can't discrimate against New York residents when they visit Pennsylvania. That is, Pennsylvania must enforce its own statutes, common law, rules, etc. to people of all states equally within their borders. It is similar to the "full faith and credit clause" which makes a state recognize "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

So, the Fourteenth Amendment's take on "privledges and immunites" is that it forces each state to recognize, respect, and enforce, the "privledges or immunities" that a citizen of the United States posseses.

I don't see how religion could apply here.

Kade
07-07-2008, 01:42 PM
Meh. I disagree with you interpretation, and don't quite see how it fits in this situation.

First, the the clause is quite clearly modeled after the "priveledges and immunites" clause in Article IV, section 2. The framers of the 14th Amednment intended it to be a reiteration of that original clause with a twist. The meaning of this original clause was that one state had to treat citizens of another state in the same manner they treat their own. So for instance, the state of Pennsylvania can't discrimate against New York residents when they visit Pennsylvania. That is, Pennsylvania must enforce its own statutes, common law, rules, etc. to people of all states equally within their borders. It is similar to the "full faith and credit clause" which makes a state "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

So, the Fourteenth Amendment's take on "privledges and immunites" is that it forces each state to recognize, respect, and enforce, the "privledges or immunities" that a citizen United States posseses.

Should Congress respect an establishment of religion in a State?

SovereignMN
07-07-2008, 01:45 PM
Should Congress respect an establishment of religion in a State?

They have. Do you realize that some states had established religions until the mid 1800's? I'm not arguing for a return to state established churches but they are NOT unconstitutional.

SovereignMN
07-07-2008, 01:48 PM
Oh this argument again.

So by this standard, the Massachusetts Bay Colony is legitimate?

You lost me. The 1st amendment clearly applies only to Congress. "Congress shall..."

There are 2 entities that it doesn't talk about....States and People. We ASSUME that it doesn't apply to people. After all, we can all make our own rules for free speech and established religions on our own property, right? Why do we assume the 1st amendment doesn't apply to PEOPLE but it applies to States? The founders clearly didn't apply it to States as (I believe) about 9 of the original 13 states had established churches at the time of ratification.

Kade
07-07-2008, 01:50 PM
They have. Do you realize that some states had established religions until the mid 1800's? I'm not arguing for a return to state established churches but they are NOT unconstitutional.

I do realize. I could go into a long, long debate about the implications... thankfully, the first amendment is now applied to the states as well... as all the Bill of Rights should be...

Kade
07-07-2008, 01:51 PM
You lost me. The 1st amendment clearly applies only to Congress. "Congress shall..."

There are 2 entities that it doesn't talk about....States and People. We ASSUME that it doesn't apply to people. After all, we can all make our own rules for free speech and established religions on our own property, right? Why do we assume the 1st amendment doesn't apply to PEOPLE but it applies to States? The founders clearly didn't apply it to States as (I believe) about 9 of the original 13 states had established churches at the time of ratification.

The STATE is as much as our property as the FEDERAL. The courts have found, rightfully, and with great fervor, that the Bill of Rights applies to State Governments as well...

familydog
07-07-2008, 02:01 PM
The courts have found, rightfully, and with great fervor, that the Bill of Rights applies to State Governments as well...

That is not true. The court has not applied the 2nd Amendment to the states. Therefore the entire Bill of Rights do not apply to the states.

You are using the incorporation doctrine. Such a doctrine relies on the violation due process. No due process was violated when states established an official religion.

The court has been wrong obviously. Also, the court didn't always feel that the Bill of Rights applied to the states. It wasn't until about the 20th century until they decided that.

SovereignMN
07-07-2008, 02:03 PM
The STATE is as much as our property as the FEDERAL. The courts have found, rightfully, and with great fervor, that the Bill of Rights applies to State Governments as well...

...and we know that the courts always rule correctly.

Your quote is incorrect. YOUR State may be as much as YOUR property as the FEDERAL but you have no claim on mine. MY State belongs to ME and my fellow Minnesotans. Each State has its own constitution that enumerates powers to their State governments.

Kade
07-07-2008, 02:07 PM
That is not true. The court has not applied the 2nd Amendment to the states. Therefore the entire Bill of Rights do not apply to the states.

You are using the incorporation doctrine. Such a doctrine relies on the violation due process. No due process was violated when states established an official religion.

The court has been wrong obviously. Also, the court didn't always feel that the Bill of Rights applied to the states. It wasn't until about the 20th century until they decided that.
Okay let's take a peek, shall we?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If you decide that this applies only to Federal Congress, than by this standard, a State can

Make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Make a law prohibiting free speech.
Make a law prohibiting free press.
Make a law prohibiting assembly.
Make a law prohibiting petitioning the government for redress of grievances.

This is your logic, not mine....

micahnelson
07-07-2008, 02:08 PM
That is not true. The court has not applied the 2nd Amendment to the states. Therefore the entire Bill of Rights do not apply to the states.

But ultimately the issue boils down to people feeling like they have rights because they can buy a very very religiously neutral license plate. I mean, "I believe"... in what? It has a cross and stained glass... It is some christ-based religion but could be anything.

I get so tired of people wanting their viewpoint validated by the government. Will people start acting in love to one another as individuals because they see that the guy in the red volvo in front of them "Believes". What a total waste of energy.

They shall know you are Christians by your love, not your state issued IDs. Spend the 30 bucks or whatever and buy some books or toys for a shelter.

SovereignMN
07-07-2008, 02:12 PM
Okay let's take a peek, shall we?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If you decide that this applies only to Federal Congress, than by this standard, a State can

Make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Make a law prohibiting free speech.
Make a law prohibiting free press.
Make a law prohibiting assembly.
Make a law prohibiting petitioning the government for redress of grievances.

This is your logic, not mine....

YES. This is true. The constitution PERMITS a state to do this. Do I want my state to do this? Heck no. But the founders did allow states to do this.

Theocrat
07-07-2008, 02:13 PM
But ultimately the issue boils down to people feeling like they have rights because they can buy a very very religiously neutral license plate. I mean, "I believe"... in what? It has a cross and stained glass... It is some christ-based religion but could be anything.

I get so tired of people wanting their viewpoint validated by the government. Will people start acting in love to one another as individuals because they see that the guy in the red volvo in front of them "Believes". What a total waste of energy.

They shall know you are Christians by your love, not your state issued IDs. Spend the 30 bucks or whatever and buy some books or toys for a shelter.

There is no neutrality, micahnelson. If the State acknowledges or establishes no theistic religion, then you have an "atheistic" religion (based on humanism, which eventually leads to communism) put in place. It's that simple.

Kade
07-07-2008, 02:15 PM
YES. This is true. The constitution PERMITS a state to do this. Do I want my state to do this? Heck no. But the founders did allow states to do this.

The Founder's also wanted us to take control of our own government... nobody would question Jefferson's desire to get these bills applied to the States... nor would the fact that the States themselves have become as large and burdensome as Federal Government is, and was during their time...

We need these rights applied to the States, regardless... there is no point in saying that they don't... that people are willing to say Constitutional Right when applying to their specific freedom is a good thing, not a bad...

In other words, we don't need to promote the selective application of these rights... regardless.

This is an example of selective application.

micahnelson
07-07-2008, 02:16 PM
There is no neutrality, micahnelson. If the State acknowledges or establishes no theistic religion, then you have an "atheistic" religion (based on humanism, which eventually leads to communism) put in place. It's that simple.

So exactly how many references to Jesus should be on my 1040 to prevent children from becoming godless commies?

Kade
07-07-2008, 02:18 PM
There is no neutrality, micahnelson. If the State acknowledges or establishes no theistic religion, then you have an "atheistic" religion (based on humanism, which eventually leads to communism) put in place. It's that simple.

Tsk. Tsk. We've been over this Theocrat.

Humanism is a religion. It does not necessarily lead to socialism, and most certainly does not lead to communism. Atheist is not humanism, but one can be atheist and a secular humanist. The neutrality of the government towards religion is just that... neutral. Secular is a word of neutrality... it does not promote any one religion, or no religion.

An example.

In God We Trust. (favors religion)
In No God We Trust. (favors no religion)
E Pluribus Unum. (neutral, and traditional)

Theocrat
07-07-2008, 02:22 PM
So exactly how many references to Jesus should be on my 1040 to prevent children from becoming godless commies?

None, because we shouldn't have income taxes in the first place. The right to keep the majority of our earned wages (that we may use it for charity, luxury, and our posterity) comes from God anyway, not the government.

JosephTheLibertarian
07-07-2008, 02:24 PM
Thoughts? (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/sclicense.plates/index.html)

No thanks.

familydog
07-07-2008, 02:28 PM
Okay let's take a peek, shall we?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If you decide that this applies only to Federal Congress, than by this standard, a State can

Make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Make a law prohibiting free speech.
Make a law prohibiting free press.
Make a law prohibiting assembly.
Make a law prohibiting petitioning the government for redress of grievances.

This is your logic, not mine....

What's wrong with my logic? Its your logic that I'm not following. Riddle me this.

Do you favor:

A) Selective Incorporation
B) Total Incorporation
C) Total Incorporation Plus

Since you seem to be in favor of incorporation, you have to believe one of them.

familydog
07-07-2008, 02:29 PM
But ultimately the issue boils down to people feeling like they have rights because they can buy a very very religiously neutral license plate. I mean, "I believe"... in what? It has a cross and stained glass... It is some christ-based religion but could be anything.

I get so tired of people wanting their viewpoint validated by the government. Will people start acting in love to one another as individuals because they see that the guy in the red volvo in front of them "Believes". What a total waste of energy.

They shall know you are Christians by your love, not your state issued IDs. Spend the 30 bucks or whatever and buy some books or toys for a shelter.

Well, even if people feel they need the government to validate their religion, that doesn't mean the government can't issue Christian-themed liscence plates.

micahnelson
07-07-2008, 02:32 PM
None, because we shouldn't have income taxes in the first place. The right to keep the majority of our earned wages (that we may use it for charity, luxury, and our posterity) comes from God anyway, not the government.

A government limited to the execution of constitutional duties does not need to recognize any god or gods, or make statements against gods. The government would not be promoting humanism, they are just executing the contract between the people and elected leaders.

I wouldn't call my local Pizza Hut a secular humanist establishment because it does not have a clear stand on religious issues. Religious viewpoints are a nonissue when preparing a pizza. The theism of Chic-Fil-A and secularism of Starbucks do come to mind, but only as a mild digression.

It is not the role of government to influence ideas, only to protect speech. If they recognize any idea or expression over another then they have overstepped their bounds.

When we put the government in charge of medicine, education, marriage, tax laws regarding churches, and political speech then the real argument shouldn't be "Government should favor religion". It should be "Government doesn't belong here beyond its role of protecting individual rights"

micahnelson
07-07-2008, 02:35 PM
Well, even if people feel they need the government to validate their religion, that doesn't mean the government can't issue Christian-themed liscence plates.

Do you want to see pan the goat god license plates? What if the gay community came up with a few interesting designs? Who gets to decide what speech is acceptable and what is not... if you live in Florida, apparently it is the state government.

I prefer to keep government ID's neutral (and if possible get them removed entirely.) Id rather the government stay out of the business of deciding what messages are socially acceptable and what messages are not. Bad precedent IMO.

Theocrat
07-07-2008, 02:36 PM
Tsk. Tsk. We've been over this Theocrat.

Humanism is a religion. It does not necessarily lead to socialism, and most certainly does not lead to communism. Atheist is not humanism, but one can be atheist and a secular humanist. The neutrality of the government towards religion is just that... neutral. Secular is a word of neutrality... it does not promote any one religion, or no religion.

An example.

In God We Trust. (favors religion)
In No God We Trust. (favors no religion)
E Pluribus Unum. (neutral, and traditional)

"Atheists" are humanists, Kade. I suspect that many "atheists" don't like being labeled as "humanists" because Humanism rightly acknowledges itself as a religious belief system. If you read any of the Humanist Manifestos, it's easy to see that any "atheist" would agree with its tenets. Secularism is a belief system; it secludes any mention, acknowledgment, or establishment of God from society, particularly in government. Secularism promotes the belief system that theistic beliefs have no place in public institutions, documents, etc. That is not a position of neutrality; it's just another philosophical view of how society should behave and believe.

Your examples only prove my point that the removal of any conception of God is just the imposition of another ideal, without God. If you were truly neutral, you wouldn't care if God was mentioned in the public arena or not. But the fact that you, like many other "atheists," have an offense with religion being acknowledged by our government (particularly the Christian religion) shows that you aren't neutral. In fact, you would rather much have it your way by removing God from any realm of governance, and that is my point. You have an agenda in imposing your religious/philosophical ideals upon others, as an "atheist," just as much as Christians do. No one is neutral.

JosephTheLibertarian
07-07-2008, 02:37 PM
Do you want to see pan the goat god license plates? What if the gay community came up with a few interesting designs? Who gets to decide what speech is acceptable and what is not... if you live in Florida, apparently it is the state government.

I prefer to keep government ID's neutral (and if possible get them removed entirely.) Id rather the government stay out of the business of deciding what messages are socially acceptable and what messages are not. Bad precedent IMO.

It's not even right for state government to impose religion on people. It's bad enough that we need license plates, now they want to shove their religious beliefs down our throats?

familydog
07-07-2008, 02:37 PM
Do you want to see pan the goat god license plates? What if the gay community came up with a few interesting designs? Who gets to decide what speech is acceptable and what is not... if you live in Florida, apparently it is the state government.

I prefer to keep government ID's neutral (and if possible get them removed entirely.) Id rather the government stay out of the business of deciding what messages are socially acceptable and what messages are not. Bad precedent IMO.

I'm not suggesting only Christians should be allowed to have religious themed plates. Everyone should.

micahnelson
07-07-2008, 02:38 PM
No one is neutral.

Which is why a government must be, lest one persons personal beliefs prevent the free exchange of ideas.

Theocrat
07-07-2008, 02:43 PM
Which is why a government must be, lest one persons personal beliefs prevent the free exchange of ideas.

Impossible, micahnelson. Have you read any of our State constitutions? They definitely aren't neutral, acknowledging the existence of God and His blessings of life, liberty, property, prosperity, etc. towards their citizens. Is the Declaration of Independence neutral? Absolutely not.

micahnelson
07-07-2008, 02:49 PM
It's not even right for state government to impose religion on people. It's bad enough that we need license plates, now they want to shove their religious beliefs down our throats?

It really is more of a way to pacify the religious to make them feel that America is still the country it was. Many Christians I know feel that the biggest threat to society is Islamic terrorism, followed by radical atheism. Having the cross on a license plate would make them feel as though they have "stood up for their faith".

Traditionally, Christians tried to benefit society and be examples of the love of Christ. Recently however, Christians have contracted out charity to the welfare state, education to the public school system, and now they are giving witnessing over to the state as well. Pretty soon all you will have to do to qualify as a Christian is to vote republican and the party will do all the things individual Christians used to have to do on their own. This saves us time and money, and allows our leaders to buy gigantic unaccredited colleges and hook up with prostitutes.

Ok, so the last line was a cheap shot. I just get fed up with people who are the "leaders of my faith" convincing less informed followers that Jesus would have supported the Iraq War.

ARealConservative
07-07-2008, 02:54 PM
Impossible, micahnelson. Have you read any of our State constitutions? They definitely aren't neutral, acknowledging the existence of God and His blessings of life, liberty, property, prosperity, etc. towards their citizens. Is the Declaration of Independence neutral? Absolutely not.

The DoI is not a legal document.

micahnelson
07-07-2008, 02:56 PM
Is the Declaration of Independence neutral? Absolutely not.

Neutral Enough. It is hanging up on my wall here to the left of me. I would note that the declaration states where rights come from, does not construct a government. The fact that it cites a creator is impressive mainly because it does not cite a government as the source of rights- this was the earthshattering proposition.

The constitution is quite neutral on the issue, the Preamble doesn't even mention God. This of course was because of religious divisions between states, as you mentioned in your post. Some states favored state religion strongly, so they did not want to interfere with the rights of the states. By your definition, the constitution fails at this point- as it should have acknowledged God.

If a government is to recognize God, how should they do it? Which God? Should we support a general monotheism- because that would include Allah. Is it by a majority vote? When we get more american Muslims will you then accept "There is no God But Allah and Mohammad is his Prophet" on our Currency?

Nirvikalpa
07-07-2008, 04:06 PM
It's not even right for state government to impose religion on people. It's bad enough that we need license plates, now they want to shove their religious beliefs down our throats?

Don't like it, don't buy it?

I hardly think seeing a license plate on a car is 'shoving religious beliefs down your throat.'

Car = personal property = you can do whatever you want with it.

familydog
07-07-2008, 04:12 PM
Neutral Enough. It is hanging up on my wall here to the left of me. I would note that the declaration states where rights come from, does not construct a government. The fact that it cites a creator is impressive mainly because it does not cite a government as the source of rights- this was the earthshattering proposition.

The constitution is quite neutral on the issue, the Preamble doesn't even mention God. This of course was because of religious divisions between states, as you mentioned in your post. Some states favored state religion strongly, so they did not want to interfere with the rights of the states. By your definition, the constitution fails at this point- as it should have acknowledged God.

If a government is to recognize God, how should they do it? Which God? Should we support a general monotheism- because that would include Allah. Is it by a majority vote? When we get more american Muslims will you then accept "There is no God But Allah and Mohammad is his Prophet" on our Currency?

The Declaration may be neutral, but the drafters' inspiration for it was not.

Kludge
07-07-2008, 04:20 PM
Thoughts? (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/17/whale.tail.ap/index.html)

hypnagogue
07-07-2008, 04:53 PM
What a stupid mess. States should not be producing anything more than identification plates. That they produce plates for christians, animal lovers, jewish cowboys, whatever needs to stop. The reasons is simple, you can't make plates for everyone, so you shouldn't make plates for anyone. Government must strive to be as neutral and even-handed with every single citizen as can possibly be achieved.

Clearly the production of Christian license plates and not any other religious sect, is giving preferential treatment to Christians. What do you think the odds are that I'd ever be able buy a license plate from the state that read "PROUD AMERICAN ATHEIST"? Not in this century I'd wager. That's merely tangential, though. Like I said, they shouldn't make Atheist license plates just as they shouldn't make Christian or Hindu ones.

That is how things ought to be. Whether that is how they are, is another question.

Incorporation Doctrine has as it's sole source the first section of the 14th amendment, which reads:


All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Personally, I think this section is a confused piece of legislation. A proper understanding of the Constitution would recognize that the Constitution bestows no rights. It is merely a plan for strictly constrained government, set within all-inclusive lists of powers. It's extraordinarily simple.

One sentence in particular is the problem; "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Nowhere are the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States defined. If we were to take the literal meaning of this, all US Citizens would be free to do anything they wished which did not run afoul of the powers of the federal government. I think it's obvious that was not what they had envisioned.

There truly are many things which need updating or repair in our Constitution.

Theocrat
07-07-2008, 04:53 PM
Thoughts? (http://www.sptimes.com/2002/03/14/State/_ATHEIST__plate_raise.shtml)

Nirvikalpa
07-07-2008, 04:58 PM
Thoughts? (http://www.sptimes.com/2002/03/14/State/_ATHEIST__plate_raise.shtml)

His car, his property, his right to declare whatever he wants on his license. I thought it was pretty funny. :D

constituent
07-07-2008, 05:15 PM
If a government is to recognize God, how should they do it? Which God? Should we support a general monotheism- because that would include Allah.

You do realize that "Allah" and "God" are the same cat, right?

http://www.jakesjokes.com/gallery/albums/funnypics_forumstuff/threadjack.jpg

LibertyEagle
07-07-2008, 05:40 PM
Okay let's take a peek, shall we?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If you decide that this applies only to Federal Congress, than by this standard, a State can

Make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Make a law prohibiting free speech.
Make a law prohibiting free press.
Make a law prohibiting assembly.
Make a law prohibiting petitioning the government for redress of grievances.

This is your logic, not mine....

Read it again. It says that CONGRESS shall make no law and therefore is referring to the federal government. It says nothing about the states.

I actually don't like the license plate, but that is my personal opinion. If I lived in that state, I would be voting against it. However, since I do not, it's really none of my business.

JMann
07-07-2008, 07:34 PM
I think this is good that government raises money via a voluntary tax. Accepting the fact that state's need operating funds (if libertarians have their way a lot more operating funds) personalized plates are a honest way to earn a buck.

If states are going to allow secular causes (which I think are religious in the way that if you acknowledge no God you must acknowledge God). If you have a stop global warming plate than a stop abortion plate is just another freedom of expression. I have far less a problem with state and local fees and taxes than those of the feds.

JMann
07-07-2008, 07:47 PM
Okay let's take a peek, shall we?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If you decide that this applies only to Federal Congress, than by this standard, a State can

Make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Make a law prohibiting free speech.
Make a law prohibiting free press.
Make a law prohibiting assembly.
Make a law prohibiting petitioning the government for redress of grievances.

This is your logic, not mine....

I think state's can limit these rights. I think of public universities as being the ultimate in representing the original 'BoR' Public Universities, which can do pretty much whatever they want, can prohibit or restrict any of the above freedoms. I think they do a far better job of protecting freedoms and protecting minority opinions than the federal government.

When the BoR was written US Senators were expected to be elected by state legislatures making local elections far more important than they are today.

The_Orlonater
07-07-2008, 07:52 PM
i lol'd.

Seriously, it's kind of funny. If people want to buy it with their own money and it's optional for them, then I don't care.

tonesforjonesbones
07-07-2008, 09:25 PM
Ok. If taxpayers contribute to the production of license plates..then I am a contributor. I want the license plates to have a cross on them..if you say it can't have it...you are abridging my freedom of religion/expression/speech. So there. tones

Kludge
07-07-2008, 09:37 PM
I want one with Rob Zombie getting devoured by children in zombie costumes.

JosephTheLibertarian
07-07-2008, 09:38 PM
Ok. If taxpayers contribute to the production of license plates..then I am a contributor. I want the license plates to have a cross on them..if you say it can't have it...you are abridging my freedom of religion/expression/speech. So there. tones

No. License plates issued by gov shouldn't even exist.

SeanEdwards
07-07-2008, 11:18 PM
Thoughts? (http://www.sptimes.com/2002/03/14/State/_ATHEIST__plate_raise.shtml)

Either everyone should be free to express their religion, or lack thereof on their license plates, or no one should. It's this kind of behavior that leads to a great deal of unnecessary animosity between religious and non-religious people, imo.

LibertyEagle
07-07-2008, 11:47 PM
Either everyone should be free to express their religion, or lack thereof on their license plates, or no one should. It's this kind of behavior that leads to a great deal of unnecessary animosity between religious and non-religious people, imo.

So, are you advocating that the federal government go beyond what the Constitution allows for and dictate to the states on this issue?

SeanEdwards
07-07-2008, 11:56 PM
So, are you advocating that the federal government go beyond what the Constitution allows for and dictate to the states on this issue?

First amendment is at the Federal level.

LibertyEagle
07-08-2008, 12:05 AM
Exactly. Which is why this issue should be up to each state to decide for themselves.

SeanEdwards
07-08-2008, 12:09 AM
Exactly. Which is why this issue should be up to each state to decide for themselves.

You're saying the states have the right to ban religious freedom?

Take a look here:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Additionally, in the 20th century the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment "incorporates" the limitations of the First Amendment. That means that the restrictions of the First Amendment also apply to the states, including the local governments within each of those states.